- Apple, Inc. v. Wecrevention, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 24, 2026 · IPR2026-00241 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of the IPR, finding Apple's unexplained inconsistent claim-construction positions before the Board and district court problematic.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“As I have indicated previously, petitioners should be presenting a single construction and applying that construction consistently. See Infineon Techs. Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456, Paper 27 at 3–4 (Director Mar. 17, 2026). Failure to do so, without adequate explanation, is problematic and raises concerns of strategic litigation behavior spill-over into the PTAB inconsistent with Congress’s intent to provide a quick and cost-effective alternative to district court litigation. Id.; Revvo, Paper 20 at 3–4; see H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 at 48 (2011). Here, Petitioner offers no explanation for its divergent positions.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“that “[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to their ordinary and customary meaning,” and that “no claim terms need be construed to resolve issues of controversy in the present Petition.” Paper 2, 4 (emphasis added). Petitioner also states, as part of its analysis of the challenged claims, that “Petitioner does not concede that the preambles of the Challenged Claims are limiting.” Id. at 9 n.5 (emphasis added). In district court, however, Petitioner tells a different story, arguing there that the preamble is limiting. Ex. 2016, 6, 7, 9, 12. Indeed, Petitioner specifically denotes that “[r]eview of ‘the entirety of the patent’ makes clear that the preamble phrase ‘high speed memory chip module’ contains the core of what the inventors ‘actually invented and intended to encompass by the claims,’ . . . and so the preamble should be limiting.” Id. at 7 (internal citations omitted, emphasis added).” slip op. at 2
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,998,017 - Apple, Inc. v. Wecrevention, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 24, 2026 · IPR2026-00240 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied Apple’s petitions and instituted no trial, exercising discretion based on Apple’s unexplained inconsistent claim-construction positions before the Board and district court.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“As I have indicated previously, petitioners should be presenting a single construction and applying that construction consistently. See Infineon Techs. Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456, Paper 27 at 3–4 (Director Mar. 17, 2026). Failure to do so, without adequate explanation, is problematic and raises concerns of strategic litigation behavior spill-over into the PTAB inconsistent with Congress’s intent to provide a quick and cost-effective alternative to district court litigation. Id.; Revvo, Paper 20 at 3–4; see H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 at 48 (2011). Here, Petitioner offers no explanation for its divergent positions.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notOther
“that “[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to their ordinary and customary meaning,” and that “no claim terms need be construed to resolve issues of controversy in the present Petition.” Paper 2, 4 (emphasis added). Petitioner also states, as part of its analysis of the challenged claims, that “Petitioner does not concede that the preambles of the Challenged Claims are limiting.” Id. at 9 n.5 (emphasis added). In district court, however, Petitioner tells a different story, arguing there that the preamble is limiting. Ex. 2016, 6, 7, 9, 12. Indeed, Petitioner specifically denotes that “[r]eview of ‘the entirety of the patent’ makes clear that the preamble phrase ‘high speed memory chip module’ contains the core of what the inventors ‘actually invented and intended to encompass by the claims,’ . . . and so the preamble should be limiting.” Id. at 7 (internal citations omitted, emphasis added).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Other
“IPR2026-00243 are similarly problematic. In its Petitions, Petitioner identifies “input/output unit” as a means-plus-function limitation and identifies the corresponding structure as input/output unit 106 in the challenged patent. See, e.g., IPR2026-00241, Paper 2, 4. Petitioner also asserts “the applied prior art anticipates or renders obvious the Challenged Claims, regardless of whether ‘input/output unit’ is construed as a §112(f) means-plus-function limitation,” and that “Petitioner is not conceding . . . that the ’017 Patent provides adequate structure for the ‘input/output unit.’” Id. at 5 (emphasis added). In District Court, however, Petitioner once again takes a different position, arguing that the claim term “input/output unit” should be construed as a means-plus-function limitation, identifying the function as “performing input and/or output functions with respect to memory,” and asserting that the challenged patent “[l]acks sufficient structure (indefinite).” IPR2026-00241, Ex. 2016, 12. According to Petitioner, “[t]he specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure for performing input and output operations with respect to memory, much less for performing those operations within any particular voltage range.” Id. at 19. Petitioner fails to adequately explain its different positions here before the Board and those it propounds in district court. See, e.g., IPR2026-00241, Paper 9. Patent Owner well states the issue; that “[t]o the extent § 112(f) governs, then either input/output unit 106 is sufficient corresponding structure (in which case [Petitioner’s] district-court indefiniteness argument fails), or it is not (in which case [Petitioner’s] IPR mapping relies on a structure [Petitioner] itself maintains is inadequate).” IPR2026-00241, Paper 8, 8–9. I agree. Petitioner’s statement that it does not concede the challenged patent provides adequate structure for the “input/output unit” thus only compounds the problem.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,201,834 - Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. v. Railware, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 15, 2026 · IPR2026-00133 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied the petitions and instituted no trial, exercising discretion based on the complete record and the petitioner’s failure to present a consistent claim construction position.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“As I have indicated previously, a petitioner should present a single construction and apply that construction consistently. See Infineon Techs. 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2026-00133. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2026-00134 and IPR2026-00135. Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456, Paper 27 at 3–4 (Director Mar. 17, 2026). Failure to do so, without adequate explanation, is problematic. Id.; Revvo, Paper 20 at 3–4. A petitioner may not avoid presenting its own claim construction position in a proceeding before the Office by presenting an analysis based on claim construction positions taken by other parties in a different proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (requiring that the petition must “set forth . . . [h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed”); Trial Practice Guide2 §§ II.B.(3) and (6). Permitting such conduct would allow a petitioner to avoid taking a consistent claim construction position. Such conduct would undermine the purpose of inter partes review proceedings and detract from the Office’s goal of “providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system.” Revvo, Paper 20 at 4–5. While certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on the complete record and a holistic assessment of all of the evidence in light of the arguments presented.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“As I have indicated previously, a petitioner should present a single construction and apply that construction consistently. See Infineon Techs. 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2026-00133. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2026-00134 and IPR2026-00135. Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456, Paper 27 at 3–4 (Director Mar. 17, 2026). Failure to do so, without adequate explanation, is problematic. Id.; Revvo, Paper 20 at 3–4. A petitioner may not avoid presenting its own claim construction position in a proceeding before the Office by presenting an analysis based on claim construction positions taken by other parties in a different proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (requiring that the petition must “set forth . . . [h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed”); Trial Practice Guide2 §§ II.B.(3) and (6). Permitting such conduct would allow a petitioner to avoid taking a consistent claim construction position. Such conduct would undermine the purpose of inter partes review proceedings and detract from the Office’s goal of “providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system.” Revvo, Paper 20 at 4–5.” slip op. at 2
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,517,782 - Digital Global Systems, Inc. v. Deepsig Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 28, 2025 · IPR2025-00194 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 314(a), finding no reasonable likelihood for the remaining claims except claim 13, whose potential success did not justify instituting trial.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or equivalent and at least two years of experience working with radio communication systems and machine learning.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–34). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zhi Ding. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–34. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description at this stage of the proceeding. We adopt Petitioner’s description for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 16. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 4–6, 12, 14, and 16–22 would have been obvious over Jüschke and Holt. Petitioner may satisfy its burden for claim 13, but, as discussed below, that would not impact our decision to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution. See Section II.F.” slip op. at 16
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“inter partes review. SAS Inst. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 366 (2018). Specifically, “[i]f a panel determines that a petition meets the standards for institution in relation to fewer than all the challenges presented, . . . the panel will evaluate all the challenges and determine whether, in the interests of efficient administration of the Office and integrity of the patent system, the entire petition should be denied.” See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 64 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/tpgnov.pdf. Here, thirteen challenged claims remain after Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer. Petitioner at most demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for one dependent claim, which has no claims depending therefrom. See Sections II.C–II.E. Thus, based on the particular facts of this case, we find that instituting trial would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources, and we exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 314(a). See Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018- 01310, Paper 7 at 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative); Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 at 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative).” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,777,540 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Dell Inc. et al. v. Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01482 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1, 2, 4, 8–10, 12, 13, 15, 18–20, and 25, exercising § 314(a) discretion after balancing the Fintiv factors and finding the merits not particularly strong.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied
“partes review “allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts,” and strongly weighs against exercising our authority to deny institution. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. Of the three district court proceedings, the Lenovo Group case, pending in the Eastern District of Texas, is the most significant to our analysis here. In the Lenovo Group case, Lenovo Group has not requested a stay. Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner argues that the Lenovo Group case is not likely to be stayed based on that court’s low grant rate in other cases and the progress of that case in particular. Id. at 17. The district court in the HP case denied a stay without prejudice and stated that a stay could be reconsidered in the future depending on the outcome at the PTAB. Prelim. Reply 3. The Dell case has been stayed. Id. On this record, we decline to speculate as to how any of the involved district courts where no stay is pending might rule on any future motion to stay. Thus, we determine that, while one stay has been granted, the lack of a stay in the other underlying district court cases, especially the Lenovo Group case, is not sufficiently persuasive to weigh this factor against exercising discretion. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 12 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (informative), cautions against speculating whether the district court would grant a stay if one were requested. Therefore, this factor has a neutral effect on the overall balancing of the Fintiv factors. B. Proximity of Trial Date to Projected Statutory Deadline (Factor 2) The scheduled trial date for the Lenovo Group case is November 3, 2025, which is about six months prior to the expected date for the final written decision here (i.e., late April 2026). See Prelim. Resp. 20; IPR2024- 01429, Ex. 2002 (Lenovo Group case Docket Control Order), 1. Petitioner argues this trial date is uncertain. Prelim. Reply 3. Further, Petitioner focuses its argument on what it terms a “growing backlog” in the Eastern District of Texas and “associated scheduling uncertainty.” Id. at 4. Petitioner refers to the status of the HP case, which is currently set for trial on September 21, 2026, and the stay in the Dell case. Id. Patent Owner responds that “[b]oth the scheduled trial date and the date of trial [in the Lenovo Group case] based on median time-to-trial statistics occur months before a final written decision would be expected here.” Prelim. Sur-reply 4. Patent Owner asserts that the time-to-trial statistics for the Eastern District of Texas project a median time-to-trial of 21.9 months. Prelim. Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 2007, U.S. District Courts Federal Court Management Statistics–Profiles—September 30, 2024). This projection yields a trial date that is prior to the expected final written decision date of April 2026. Prelim. Sur-reply 4. As with the previous factor, the status of the Lenovo Group case is our focus here. As stated, that trial is set to occur about six months before a final written decision would issue in this proceeding. The district court has stated that this trial date setting “cannot be changed without an acceptable showing of good cause.” Prelim. Resp. 20. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s unsupported argument that the trial date is uncertain. We also consider the fact that the median time-to-trial statistic discussed by both parties projects a trial date earlier than the actual date set by the district court. Ex. 2007; Prelim. Sur-reply 1. The fact that the time-to-trial statistic is earlier than the trial date set in the Lenovo Group case confirms that the schedule set by the district court is credible and should be given weight. From this evidence, we are persuaded that we should rely on the trial” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“E. Conclusion Regarding the Merits Petitioner does not present particularly strong merits. Petitioner’s arguments on the “bus limitation,” to succeed at trial, would require addressing a claim construction issue that was never addressed in the Petition and is arguably contradicted by the ’520 patent, which discloses transmitting packets representing a plurality of different control signals on a single bus. See Prelim. Sur-reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:34–38, 9:23–25, 9:50–54). Similarly, prevailing on the “modified protocol” issue would require proving that the HDMI–C protocol, which uses the same separate channel arrangement for CEC and DDC as standard HDMI, is sufficiently “modified” to meet the claim. Taking into account Patent Owner’s persuasive arguments supra in response, and for the reasons given, we do not find the merits of Petitioner’s position on either of these dispositive issues to be particularly strong.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither party proposes claim constructions for our consideration. Petitioner submits that it “for the purposes of this proceeding, the terms of the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and no terms require specific construction.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position that no terms require construction. Prelim. Resp. 11–12. We determine there are no claim terms that need to be expressly construed for this Decision.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner states that a person of ordinary skill “would have the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training and three years of work experience with data communications systems or interfaces, including at least some experience with serial or display data communications systems or interfaces .” Prelim. Resp. 12. The differences between these nearly-identical definitions are minor and immaterial to our decision. We regard either description as consistent with the challenged patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,856,520 - Reed Semiconductor Corp. v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00871 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim; it also found institution inefficient based on Ground 1 alone.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. D. The Alleged Unpatentability of Claims 1, 11, and 12 as Anticipated by TI,” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims of the ’608 patent. IV. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 39
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Here, Petitioner advances five challenges with four directed to the same three independent claims. Pet. 3. We, for the reasons discussed below, determine that Petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Grounds 2 through 5. We further determine that, based on the particular facts of this proceeding, instituting a trial with respect to all grounds and all the challenged claims based on evidence and arguments directed only to Ground 1 would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources. Cf. Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9, 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative); Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative). Thus, even if Petitioner met the requisite burden for institution as to Ground 1, we would exercise our discretion and not institute an inter partes review. E. The Alleged Anticipation of Claims 1, 11, and 12 by Galinski (Ground 2)” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,590,608 - Ideavillage Products Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips N.VInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 25, 2022 · IPR2022-00904 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on the sole claim, finding the obviousness challenges inadequate and exercising discretion to deny the marginal anticipation challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An obviousness analysis involves two steps; first, “one must find a single reference, a something in existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design”; second, “once this primary reference is found, other references may be used to modify it to create a design that has the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design.” High Point Design, 730 F.3d at 1311 (internal quotation and citations omitted). Even when secondary references are not used, however, the analysis still requires an explanation as to how and why the primary reference (something having design characteristics basically the same as the claimed design) would have been modified to arrive at a design that has the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design. See, e.g., In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d at 1217 (involving single-reference obviousness rejection and addressing the differences between the reference and the claimed design); In re Lamb, 286 F.2d 610, 611 (CCPA 1961) (affirming the Board in a case involving a single-reference obviousness rejection where “the board observed that it is conventional to use relatively slimmer handles with slim blades and that therefore, ‘it would be expected that a designer skilled in the cutlery art would use a somewhat narrower or slimmer handle with a slim blade’”). None of the 42 obviousness challenges advanced in the Petition is supported by an adequate analysis of those two steps. See id. at 64–88. In particular, none sufficiently discusses both the differences between the been modified (alone or in view of any other reference) to have the same visual appearance as the claimed design. Id.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“An obviousness analysis involves two steps; first, “one must find a single reference, a something in existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design”; second, “once this primary reference is found, other references may be used to modify it to create a design that has the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design.” High Point Design, 730 F.3d at 1311 (internal quotation and citations omitted). Even when secondary references are not used, however, the analysis still requires an explanation as to how and why the primary reference (something having design characteristics basically the same as the claimed design) would have been modified to arrive at a design that has the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design. See, e.g., In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d at 1217 (involving single-reference obviousness rejection and addressing the differences between the reference and the claimed design); In re Lamb, 286 F.2d 610, 611 (CCPA 1961) (affirming the Board in a case involving a single-reference obviousness rejection where “the board observed that it is conventional to use relatively slimmer handles with slim blades and that therefore, ‘it would be expected that a designer skilled in the cutlery art would use a somewhat narrower or slimmer handle with a slim blade’”). None of the 42 obviousness challenges advanced in the Petition is supported by an adequate analysis of those two steps. See id. at 64–88. In particular, none sufficiently discusses both the differences between the been modified (alone or in view of any other reference) to have the same visual appearance as the claimed design. Id.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)
“Specifically, on that crucial issue, Mr. Peyser testifies “that the multiple perspective views are informative enough to prov[id]e me an understanding of what the front and rear views of the shaver head would look like.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 60 (emphasis added). Mr. Peyser neither explains why the perspective views are sufficient to disclose the missing front and rear views of the Philips OneBlade shaver head, nor keys his testimony, with sufficient clarity, to the understanding of an ordinary observer. Ex. 1003 ¶ 60 (referring to “me,” not the ordinary observer). When Mr. Peyser does turn to the relevant inquiry, therefore, focusing on the ordinary observer, his opinions are not tethered adequately to supporting facts. Ex. 1003 ¶ 61. Stated somewhat differently, his ultimate opinion is conclusory. See id.; see also In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a petitioner’s burden of proving obviousness cannot be satisfied by employing “mere conclusory statements”).” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“Specifically, on that crucial issue, Mr. Peyser testifies “that the multiple perspective views are informative enough to prov[id]e me an understanding of what the front and rear views of the shaver head would look like.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 60 (emphasis added). Mr. Peyser neither explains why the perspective views are sufficient to disclose the missing front and rear views of the Philips OneBlade shaver head, nor keys his testimony, with sufficient clarity, to the understanding of an ordinary observer. Ex. 1003 ¶ 60 (referring to “me,” not the ordinary observer). When Mr. Peyser does turn to the relevant inquiry, therefore, focusing on the ordinary observer, his opinions are not tethered adequately to supporting facts. Ex. 1003 ¶ 61. Stated somewhat differently, his ultimate opinion is conclusory. See id.; see also In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a petitioner’s burden of proving obviousness cannot be satisfied by employing “mere conclusory statements”).” slip op. at 15
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips - Netscout Systems, Inc. v. Longhorn HD LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 10, 2022 · IPR2021-01258 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds and claims, finding no reasonable likelihood for at least claims 1–11 and that trying all 12 claims would be inefficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The problem with Petitioner’s contention is that limitation 1[f] does not require an “anomaly detector” to detect anomalous correlations between input vectors, but instead, an “anomaly detector . . . to detect anomalous correlations between individual ones of said clusters.” Ex. 1001, 10:66– 11:3. In this regard, the’846 patent’s specification discloses [o]nce sufficient data has be stored in the database, multi-dimensional vectors can be constructed and reduced from the stored data. The reduced multi-dimensional vectors can be processed using one or more conventional multi-variate analysis methods and the output sets produced by the multi-variate analysis methods can be correlated against one another according to one or more selected metrics. Id. at 4:34–40; see also id. at 9:15–19 (“Once, the reduced vectors have been processed by the multiple clustering methodologies in block 270, one or more metrics can be selected in block 280 for purposes of establishing a correlation between the output sets of the processed reduced multi-dimensional vectors.”). In contrast, the portions of Rhodes relied upon by Petitioner to address the argued limitation disclose that Rhodes detects anomalous behavior based on a correlation between input vectors, i.e., a “‘comparison function’ to measure ‘how different two vectors are.’” Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1004, 3); see also id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1004, 8 (“The most obvious measure of vector similarity is somehow aggregating the differences among their several coordinates.”).” slip op. at 17
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Here, the Petition challenges 12 claims of the ’846 patent. Pet. 1. As discussed above, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing with respect to its challenges to at least 11 of these claims. Were we to institute review, the resulting trial would nonetheless go forward on all 12 claim challenges. We find that instituting trial, therefore, would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources. Consequently, we exercise our discretion to deny institution of the entire Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314.10” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no construction of any term is necessary to resolve the issues presented by the arguments and evidence of record to reach a decision on institution. See Nidec Motor Corp. 8 The Petition in this case was accorded a filing date of August 11, 2021. See Paper 3, 1. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on our review of the record at this stage, we find that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (listing the type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, and the sophistication of the technology as factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art). The prior art itself may be sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Thus, for purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,260,846 - Lumenis Be Ltd. v. BTL Healthcare Technologies A.S.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 8, 2022 · IPR2021-01275 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution, finding the petition deficient on most challenged claims and declining review because it could at best succeed on two of fourteen claims and two of three grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“On the current record, we find Petitioner’s contentions that the skilled artisan would have had “two or more” years of experience to be too vague as it encompasses skill levels beyond the proposal level without a defined limit. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s proposal except we do not adopt the “or more” terminology above. We determine that with our changes Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’321 patent Specification and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“C. Claim Construction We construe the challenged claims by applying the standard used in federal courts, in other words, “the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b),” which is articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Neither party seeks claim construction other than the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms. See Pet. 9; see generally Prelim. Resp.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“to deny a petition “even when the petition includes at least one claim subject to a challenge that otherwise meets the criteria for institution.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide11 at 64; see also 84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019). The Petition consists of challenges to fourteen claims, each challenged under at least two different grounds of unpatentability, and a total of three grounds of unpatentability. See Pet. 6. For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating (1) obviousness of claims 1–7 and 10–14 over Simon alone; (2) obviousness of claims 1–7 and 10–14 over the combination of Burnett ’870 and Magstim; and (3) obviousness of claims 10–14 over the combination of Simon and Burnett ’870. See supra §§ III.D–III.E. Assuming without deciding that Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that claims 8 and 9 would have been obvious over Simon alone or Simon and Burnett ’870, Petitioner at best could succeed in two of fourteen challenged claims and in two of three grounds. Under the circumstances presented—where 11 Available at http://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. grounds even though Petitioner could at best succeed in two of fourteen challenged claims and in two of three grounds—we determine it would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources to institute review. See Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 at 10– 11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative); see also Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 at 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative). Accordingly, we exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to decline to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Upon consideration of Burnett ’870, including Burnett ’870’s description of “activating two coils ‘differentially’” and the disclosures of Magstim relied on by Petitioner, we are not persuaded that they support using two capacitors or energy storage devices. Instead, the disclosures of Burnett ’870, Burnett ’185, and Magstim are consistent with Patent Owner’s assertions that the Petition demonstrates a teaching of only a single capacitor.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,632,321 - Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Company / Helmerich & Payne Technologies, LLC et al. v. Nabors Drilling Technologies USA, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 21, 2021 · IPR2021-00621 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on at least 18 claims, and review of all 19 would be inefficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“the monitored toolface angle, in and of itself, is indicative of a difference between the actual and desired toolface orientations as required by limitation 1[a]. Although Petitioner and Mr. Sharma point to comparing the monitored toolface angle with the tool face angle selected to achieve a desired trajectory for the bore hole, they do not identify any such comparison disclosed in Haci. Nor do they identify adequately any disclosure that Haci’s system displays or otherwise provides both the desired and measured toolface angles to the driller such that the measured toolface angle display, in conjunction with a desired toolface angle display, is indicative of the difference therebetween. At best, Petitioner and Mr. Sharma assert that the measured toolface angle could be used by the driller to determine the difference between the actual and desired toolface angles. Claim 1, however, requires the drilling operation parameter itself, which Petitioner maps to the measured toolface angle, to be indicative of the difference between the actual and desired toolface orientations.” slip op. at 21
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“institute review or don’t.” SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1355. When a petition fails to meet the reasonable likelihood standard as to some challenges, the Board evaluates “all the challenges and determine[s] whether, in the interests of efficient administration of the Office and integrity of the patent system, the entire petition should be denied.” See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 64 (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 316(b), 326(b)). In determining whether to institute in circumstances such as those presented here, we take into account the efficient use of the Board’s time and resources. See Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 at 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (designated informative); Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 at 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (designated informative).” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Based on the record, we determine that no explicit construction of terms is needed to resolve the issues presented to reach a decision on institution. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,823,655
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.